… in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed".
Absolutely, and He said that in the tone of “spirituality”. Remember, He also said that “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” One eats and drinks of His words by coming to Him – for His words are of life! I could expound upon this, but I think you may understand what I just said.
Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this.
You shouldn’t “assume” anything from me. I would have been serious about such a topic. It would have been allegorical, not literal. That’s no joke!
The Apostles did take Christ literally.
Yes, they did, but they did not leave him – they had no where else to go or to believe in, maybe because Jesus had shown them He was no ordinary “guy”. However, there were some who were following Him that just couldn’t get away from the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood. It’s that way today, also.
St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.
I would say that to get the whole context you would have to read from I Cor. 11:17-34 – right? I agree with you that the Lord’s Supper is NOT merely a memorial meal. It is a communion with the Lord Himself! Those who do not distinguish that the bread and cup refers to Christ’s body eats and drinks judgment upon themselves. We are not far apart on this, and I never put down Catholics on their communion ritual – I just disagree with the “transubstantiation” dogma for there is nothing in the Scriptures that would prove that the bread and fruit of the vine are literally changed (they really aren’t!) into flesh and blood. It is a spiritual thing that Jesus said, pointing out that we are to take part in this eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in remembrance of his death and resurrection until He comes again.
This “transubstantiation” dogma is the thing that is a late-comer in your belief system.
Indeed, -- the Eucharist is the kind of food from which the flesh does not profit. Yet, it is Hs flesh and it is "food indeed". This is the Real Presence as the Church teaches it.
This “transubstantiation” dogma is the thing that is a late-comer
Transubstantiation is a way to explain the Real Presence in the light of modern (that is to say, Medieval) philosophy. It is indeed a medieval construct, not terribly popular in the East either. But the real dispute is the Real Presence of Christ in full in the Eucharistci meal. That is taugth directly in the Bible. There are allusions to the transubstantiation as well, but they are more subtle.
**This “transubstantiation” dogma is the thing that is a late-comer in your belief system.**
I’m wrinkling my brow and questioning your use of the word “latecomer.”
The first tansformation of substance (transubstandiation) took place in the hands of Jesus Christ. That is hardly “latecoming” as you say.